But again, rewatch the trailer for the original film, and you'd see that that one was never sold to the public as a satire either.

I think if they put any of that in, it would make it look more like an action comedy and I don't think that would sit well for anybody either.

You are correct, the original film's trailer didn't allude to it's satire. However, if the remake has the satire that the original had I'll be extremely surprised. Since Batman every action hero franchise has to be dark and void of anything tongue-in-cheek.

So I assume that in the new Robocop, he is fully aware that he is the experiment. Unlike the original, where that was one of the major themes that Peter Weller slowly regains memory of what he once was.

I think the point some were trying to make is that it's not anything new or different. Just another "existing franchise turned 'serious' with some CGI and a PG-13 rating thrown in". See Total Recall, Terminator Salvation, Red Dawn and many others.

It lacks the satire! The suit is different! Murphy is killed in a different way! etc. etc. etc.
How DARE they try something new with this reboot/remake Isn´t that the whole point with a new version?

I like that Murphy´s memory and personality is intact, when he wakes up as Robocop in this version.

Ideally and in theory, you're right. But I'd hate to think just how rarely that's actually the case. If you see a remake and realize that it's an intelligently made film with a clear reason for existence, then that's something to celebrate. But I don't think the last 20 years have given us much reason to think that this is always or even often the case.

Remakes seem to be to the new millennium what sequels were to the 80's - a reliable way to use brand recognition to cash in on a fan base. The difference, though, is that sequels more often than not felt some pressure to establish some form of continuity, which I think a lot of people here respond well to. They also couldn't get away with exactly repeating parts from earlier films (flashbacks excluded). The modern remake is basically just a sequel where no one worries about continuity, and they can repeat popular scenes and catchphrases beat-for-beat whenever they want to.

This is all just academic, though. As far as the RoboCop remake goes, I'm not too bent out of shape. Like I said before, Keaton and Oldman are definite signs of potential quality.

in 1 shot in the trailer you see Robocop jumping down from an appartment and it made me think of Iron Man, i hope they won't turn him into a superhero-kind-of-guy, in the original despite all the technological advances Robocop still had some limitations

also, the music score of the original will be very hard to beat, but i reckon that looked upon it in solitary, this movie will be 'good', but not on the 'classic' level of the original

The satire was a big part of the original, the suit looks like shit and murphy's death is horribly cliche and generic.

new and different my ass.

Yeah, I dislike when people give something credit just because they did it differently. If they did it differently and really thought it out and it came out well, then great. (see: Cronenberg's The Fly). However, if they make changes but it doesn't add or really fit well with the story, why give them credit at all? (see: Bayer's NOES) I much prefer for a remake to stick with the strengths of the original material if they are just making changes to make changes (so they can say hey, this is NEW) which only ends up diluting the power of the source material.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people that are remaking these movies don't really understand what makes them so special to fans anyway. They tend to remake movies now on a very surface level.